chapter 5 mens rea, concurrence, and causation. mens rea (criminal intent) the mental part of...

Chapter 5Chapter 5

Mens Rea, Concurrence, and Mens Rea, Concurrence, and CausationCausation

Mens ReaMens Rea (Criminal Intent) (Criminal Intent)

The mental part of crimes:Mens rea (guilty mind)Scienter (guilty knowledge)

Reasons for requiring moral blameworthiness:ResponsibilityDeterrencePunishment

The Evidentiary BurdenThe Evidentiary BurdenThe most reliable indication of intent is a

defendant’s confession or statement to other individuals.

In most cases, we examine the surrounding circumstances & apply our understanding of human behavior.

Evidence that helps use to indirectly establish a criminal intent or criminal act is termed circumstantial evidence.

The Model Penal Code StandardThe Model Penal Code Standard

General intentSpecific intentCrimes of “cause & result”Transferred intentConstructive intent

Four Types of Criminal IntentFour Types of Criminal Intent

Purpose (most serious)

Knowledge

Recklessness

Negligence (least serious)

PurposelyPurposely

The most serious category of criminal intent.

A defendant must possess a specific intent or “conscious object” to commit a crime or to cause a result.Commonwealth v. Barnette (1988)

5.1. You Decide: Perez-Gonzalez5.1. You Decide: Perez-Gonzalez

What evidence supports the prosecution’s charge that Perez-Gonzalez knew that the passengers he was transporting were illegal aliens? How so?

How would you rule in this case regarding Perez-Gonzalez’s level of mental intent? Why?

KnowinglyKnowingly

An individual satisfies the knowingly standard when he/she is “aware” that circumstances exist or that a result is practically certain to result from his/her conduct.

State v. Nations (1984)

5.2. You Decide: Hypolite5.2. You Decide: HypoliteDiscuss the legal issues surrounding

Hypolite’s knowledge of the products he imported into the US?

Given the case circumstances, would you find him guilty of knowingly importing illegal drugs into the US? Why or why not?

What about a different charge/offense requiring a lesser level of mens rea? Why or why not?

RecklesslyRecklesslyReckless individuals engage in obviously risky

behavior that they know creates a risk of substantial & unjustifiable harm, & yet do not expect that injury or harm will result.

Test for reckless conduct:A conscious disregard of a substantial &

unjustifiable risk.A gross deviation from the standard that a law-

abiding person would observe in the same situation.

Hranicky v. State (2004)

5.3. You Decide: Suarez5.3. You Decide: Suarez

Discuss the various legal complexities surrounding holding Suarez liable for recklessly causing her daughter’s death.

If you were a judge, how would you rule in this case?

Consider also the possibility of a lesser charge against Suarez that requires only a negligent level of mens rea as opposed to a recklessness requirement.

NegligentlyNegligently

Negligence involves engaging in harmful & dangerous conduct while being unaware of a risk that a reasonable person would appreciate.

Important issues: mental state & objective standard

People v. Baker (2004)

5.4. You Decide: Strong5.4. You Decide: Strong

Discuss the moral blameworthiness of Strong in this case.

Although he was convicted for reckless manslaughter, would you agree with his argument that the jury receive instructions regarding criminally negligent homicide also (or instead)? Why or why not?

Strict Liability OffensesStrict Liability Offenses

An offense that does not require mens rea; an individual may be convicted based solely on the commission of a criminal act (actus reus).

Public welfare offenses—intended to protect society against impure food, defective drugs, pollution, & unsafe working conditions.

Strict Liability Offenses (cont.)Strict Liability Offenses (cont.)

Malum prohibita—an act is wrong because it is prohibited

Malum in se—inherently wrong acts such as rape, robbery, & murder

US v. Flum (1975)

5.5. You Decide: Walker5.5. You Decide: Walker

Discuss whether or not the prosecution should be responsible for proving that Walker possessed a knowing or purposeful intent to sell/deliver drugs within a certain area (school grounds) in order to get a conviction.

Should the prosecution also be required to prove a certain level of intent in order to get a sentence enhancement if the defendant is convicted? Why or why not?

Discuss the pros/cons of making this type of an offense a strict liability offense instead.

ConcurrenceConcurrence

There must be concurrence between a criminal act & the criminal intent.

Chronological concurrence—a criminal intent must exist at the same time as a criminal act.

State v. Rose (1973)

5.6. You Decide: Jackson5.6. You Decide: Jackson

Where should Jackson be criminally prosecuted for the intentional killing of Bryan since the autopsy revealed that his poisoning of her (in Ohio) was not fatal but rather the beheading (which occurred in Kentucky) actually resulted in her death?

Provide support for your opinion regarding which state possesses jurisdiction over this case.

CausationCausationCentral to the criminal law & must be proven

beyond a reasonable doubt.

Causality is based on two considerations:Individual responsibilityFairness

Two main types of causation:Cause in fact (Factual cause)Legal cause (Proximate cause)

Factual CauseFactual Cause

Simply requires a person to ask whether “but for” the defendant’s act the victim would have died (been injured, etc.).

Defendant’s act must be the cause in fact or factual cause of a harm to be criminally convicted.

This connects the defendant to the result.

Legal (Proximate) CauseLegal (Proximate) Cause

Analysis requires the jury to determine whether it is fair or just to hold a defendant legally responsible (liable) for an injury or death.

Is the defendant liable if death results from an intervening cause or outside factor?

Two types of intervening causes:Coincidental intervening actResponsive intervening act

Coincidental Intervening ActsCoincidental Intervening Acts Arise when defendant’s act places a victim in a

particular place where the victim is harm by an unforeseeable event.

A defendant who commits a crime is responsible for the natural & probable consequences of his/her actions.

This does not extend to unforeseeable coincidental intervening acts.

The defendant generally is legally liable for foreseeable coincidental intervening acts.

Responsive Intervening ActsResponsive Intervening Acts

The response of a victim to a defendant’s criminal act.

The issue is the foreseeability of the victim’s response rather than the reasonableness of the victim’s response.

Medical negligence has been viewed as foreseeable & does not break the chain of causation.

5.7. You Decide: Herman5.7. You Decide: Herman

Were Herman’s actions the proximate cause of the firefighter’s injury?

Was the firefighter’s injury a result of the fire itself?

Relying on the legal rules & criteria surrounding causation & intervening factors, provide support for your opinion.

Key IssuesKey IssuesDefining mens rea

Reasons for mens rea/moral blameworthiness

Evidentiary burden

The Model Penal Code Standard (categories)

Types of intent

Purpose

Knowledge

Recklessness

Negligence

Key Issues (cont.)Key Issues (cont.)Strict liability offensesConcurrenceCausation

Cause in fact (factual cause)Legal cause (proximate cause)

Intervening causes/actsCoincidental intervening actsResponsive intervening acts